Absence as Advantage

The interview conducted by David Robertson from the Religious Studies project with Bjørn Ola Tafjord (University of Tromsø) and Arkotong Longkumer (University of Edinburgh) explores the meanings, challenges and various usages of the increasingly popular notion of Indigenous Religion(s).

By Liudmila Nikanorova

Liudmila Nikanorova, Sakha woman born in Yakutsk (North-Eastern Siberia, Russia). Currently is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Religious Studies, the Arctic University of Norway (University of Tromsø). Member of the international research project “Indigenous religion(s). Local Grounds, Global Networks” (INREL). Background: Integrated Master in History from the North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk. Master of Philosophy in Indigenous Studies from the University of Tromsø. Research interests: indigenous religion(s), Sakha religion, indigenous revitalization, indigenous festivals, Sakha people, Sakha nationalism.

Liudmila Nikanorova

Liudmila Nikanorova, Sakha woman born in Yakutsk (North-Eastern Siberia, Russia). Currently is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Religious Studies, the Arctic University of Norway (University of Tromsø). Member of the international research project “Indigenous religion(s). Local Grounds, Global Networks” (INREL).
Background: Integrated Master in History from the North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk. Master of Philosophy in Indigenous Studies from the University of Tromsø.
Research interests: indigenous religion(s), Sakha religion, indigenous revitalization, indigenous festivals, Sakha people, Sakha nationalism.

In response to:

What do we mean by Indigenous Religion(s)?

We talk a lot about the World Relgions Paradigm at the Religious Studies Project, and this discussion looks more closely at one of the ancillary categories, Indigenous Religion. What exactly does this term refer to? Does it refer to specific religions (plural) or a kind of religion (singular)?

A response to “What do we mean by Indigenous Religion(s)” with Bjorn Ola Tafjord and Arkotong Longkumer

by Liudmila Nikanorova

The interview conducted by David Robertson from the Religious Studies project with Bjørn Ola Tafjord (University of Tromsø) and Arkotong Longkumer (University of Edinburgh) explores the meanings, challenges and various usages of the increasingly popular notion of Indigenous Religion(s). Both Tafjord and Longkumer, based on their extensive academic expertise in the field of Indigenous Religion(s) and many years of field work experiences, share their own perspectives and ways of working with the category of Indigenous Religion(s).

The interview begins with the very category of Indigenous religion(s) being challenged. Tafjord asserts that the very idea of classifying Indigenous Religion(s) as a category of religion is just one of the numerous ways of looking at the notion. The difficulty with categorizing Indigenous Religion(s) as Longkumer says is that ‘there is no set paradigm of what Indigenous Religion(s) is/ are’.

So, how to approach this uncomfortable category of Indigenous Religion(s) that are so often assumed to just be ‘all the rest’ or, ‘the other’ religions? Is the emergence of the Indigenous Religion(s) just a politically correct re-naming of the Primitive Religions category, or does it have potential to empower previously looked down upon religions and traditions by colonial scholars? Tafjord and Longkumer name a few arguments that can contribute to this discussion.

First, the relative success of the indigenous rights movements stemming from 1970s. Globalization of the Indigenous Religion(s), where United Nations functions as a platform that supports indigenous rights create a positive environment where indigenous populations can address their needs and challenges. Robertson brought up an excellent example of an indigenous group in Canada that first claimed to be an “indigenous religion” when oil drilling started in their territories. In response some questions occurred such as “Why weren’t these indigenous people claiming rights for their religion before?”. This example shows the reaction of indigenous groups to the oil-drilling, where indigenous populations used the available tools to protect their land and simply communicated it in a recognizable legal way for the oil-companies’ to understand. Both Tafjord and Longkumer stress the importance of communication and translation, when they argue that in order for indigenous people to be understood and respected, their views have to be translated into a recognizable unit for policy-makers, which the framework of international indigenous rights movements offered in its turn. Thus, the connection between the emergence of the notion of Indigenous Religion(s) has a tight common history with the movement of human rights, in particular the rights of indigenous peoples.

Second, pluralisation of religions and the loss of the hegemonic power to define what is  religion by some of the world religions. Bringing the case of the Bribri people, Tafjord argues for the shift that occurred within just a few decades in Talamanca, when the Catholic Church in Costa Rica lost its previously hegemonic position of defining, what is religion and what are superstitions. Thus, the rise of Indigenous Religion(s) in the public sphere also had to do with the decline of the position of the Catholic Church, which would otherwise have classified the religion of Bribri as primitive or idolatry. The paradigm of ‘world religion’ was shaken and more room was made available for Indigenous Religion(s) not only in Talamanca, but in many other places worldwide. Despite the fact that Indigenous Religion(s) are still often grouped into the category of ‘the rest of the religions’, their position became more equalized with the other big religions. Whether such equalization causes more benefits or conflicts, varies too widely to conclude with any reasonable claim.

Another important issue raised by Longkumer, was whether Christianity can be an Indigenous Religion? Can indigenous people be Christians? If yes, does that make Christianity an Indigenous Religion? And can non-indigenous people practice indigenous religion? If yes, will it still be an indigenous religion? Here it is helpful according to Tafjord to pay attention on what word the emphasis falls on, to the adjective indigenous or the noun religions. When and how does religion becomes indigenous? When and how do indigenous traditions become religions? To what consequences and results do these shifts and transformations bring? There is no one answer for these questions, instead what Tafjord and Longkumer encourage is the need to challenge the western academic concepts and be aware of their limitations.

Lastly, almost everybody that has met the term Indigenous Religion(s) already has their own assumptions, whether it is a tourist at the festival or, a religious studies student. Does Indigenous Religion have to be something exotic? When it is not exotic, is it still interesting, worth visiting and doing research on? As Longkumer reminds, if our previously set expectations are not met at the field and it is no longer possible to distinguish indigenous people by their clothing or by certain behaviours. Then, this serves more as an alarm for created colonial images that are still strong in public, than for arguments criticizing Indigenous Religion(s) as inauthentic, not worthy of visiting or doing research. I agree that Indigenous Religion(s) are alive and dynamic, and, therefore, the argument of authenticity is irrelevant and disempowering. However, claims for the authenticity made by various actors can reveal more about the power-structures and interest groups.

Perhaps by looking at the absence of an Indigenous Religion(s) paradigm or definition as an advantage, rather than problem, we might shed some positive light on approaching the concept. After all, it is the flexibility and the inclusiveness to various audiences and usages, that positions Indigenous Religion(s) as an opportunity “out there” for those who wish to use it.

Other EPISODES YOU MIGHT ENJOY

Religion and Memory

Podcast

In the year 2000, English-speaking scholars interested in ‘religion’ were introduced (in translation) to one of the most important texts in the sociology of religion in recent years, Danièle Hervieu-Léger’s “Religion as a Chain of Memory”. This book placed the study of ‘religion and memory’ firmly on the academic agenda,
Lived Religion: Part 1

Podcast

Dr. Meredith McGuire talks about the multiple issues of power, normativity and embodiment of religious life that can be observed through her concept of Lived Religion. Part 2 on Wednesday! Meredith McGuire shows how Lived Religion, a concept she has coined, is at the core of this distinction and offers a way of understanding religious experiences as creative,
Encounters Between Buddhism and the West

Podcast

In this story is a continuation of "dissident orientalism", a conflict inherent within the colonial project wherein communities and personal trajectories become embedded within local religious contexts. A distinction made, both in Ireland and Burma, between native religion and the religion of the coloniser serves ...
Lisbeth Mikaelsson on Religion and Gender

Podcast

From dress codes to notions of purity to questions of the legitimate of power the topic of gender is one few scholars can afford to ignore. With a whole range of issues to be investigated Lisbeth Mikaelsson gives us an introductory insight into the complex topic of religion and gender: the issues it raises, the way we go about it, who’s doing it and why.
Social Constructionism

Podcast

What is social constructionism, and how is it important to the study of religion? Titus Hjelm explains how approaches which see social realities as built from discourses challenge how we think about ontology, epistemology and power.What is social constructionism, and how is it important to the study of religion? In this interview,
Religion and Authority in Asia

Podcast

Given its contextual and perspectival malleability, the notion of ‘authority', and even more so of ‘religious authority’, is challenging to define and to study. In today’s interview with Paulina Kolata, Dr Erica Baffelli discusses the notion of authority and charismatic leadership in the context of her research on New and ‘New’ New religions in contemporary Japan.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

The views expressed in podcasts, features and responses are the views of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Religious Studies Project or our sponsors. The Religious Studies Project is produced by the Religious Studies Project Association (SCIO), a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (charity number SC047750).